[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Sorry if this shows up twice - the first post to linux-kernel was
> apparently eaten by an over-eager spam filter with an agenda ;^]
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
>> This is probably going to be controversial, but Linus should seriously
>> consider adding a clause that those who contribute to the kernel from now on
>> consent to allow him to modify the license on their current contributions
>> and all past contributions, amending the Linux kernel license as
>> appropriate. This would at least begin to reduce this problem over the next
>> few years, leaving fewer and fewer people with claim to less and less code
>> who would have legal standing to object.
> It's the last thing I'd ever want to do, for all the same reasons the
> kernel doesn't have the "or later versions" language wrt licenses.
> I don't actually want people to need to trust anybody - and that very much
> includes me - implicitly.
> I think people can generally trust me, but they can trust me exactly
> because they know they don't _have_ to.
> The reason the poll and the whitepaper got started was that I've obviously
> not been all that happy with the GPLv3, and while I was pretty sure I was
> not alone in that opinion, I also realize that _everybody_ thinks that
> they are right, and that they are supported by all other right-thinking
> people. That's just how people work. We all think we're better than
> average.
> So while I personally thought it was pretty clear that the GPLv2 was the
> better license for the kernel, I didn't want to just depend on my own
> personal opinion, but I wanted to feel that I had actually made my best to
> ask people.

Regarding the GPLv2 vs v3 debate, i don't think anyone is in favour of a
different view, but ..

> Now, I could have done it all directly on the Linux-kernel mailing list,
> but let's face it, that would just have caused a long discussion and we'd
> not have really been any better off anyway. So instead, I did
> git log | grep -i signed-off-by: |
> cut -d: -f2- | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | less -S

When applied to subsystems, the patch author "A" applies his/her patch
to the repo, the MAINTAINER cherry picks the patches for submitting to
the kernel.

In such a case, it becomes,

Signed-off-by: A
Signed-off-by: MAINTAINER

in a subsystem there are indeed many contributors, eventually it is indeed

Signed-off-by: "x"
Signed-off-by: MAINTAINER

So it is indeed incorrect to term that the MAINTAINER is the most
popular Contributor, because the CONTRIBUTOR is the PATCH AUTHOR
himself, not the MAINTAINER.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-23 10:09    [W:0.190 / U:7.548 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site